Trainor v. The Standard Times

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Robinson
• Citation: Trainor v. The Standard Times, 924 A.2d 766 (R.I. 2007)
• Decision Date: 20 June 2007
• Docket Number: No. 2006-97-Appeal.,2006-97-Appeal.
• Parties: Kent TRAINOR v. THE STANDARD TIMES et al.

924 A.2d 766

Kent TRAINOR v. THE STANDARD TIMES et al.

No. 2006-97-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 20, 2007.

Arthur E. Chatfield, Esq., Providence, for Plaintiff.

Michael F. Horan, Esq., Pawtucket, for Defendant.

Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ.

OPINION

Justice ROBINSON for the Court.

The plaintiff, Kent Trainor, appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, The Standard Times, in a defamation action. The dispute arose as a result of a newspaper article published by the defendant on March 15, 2001. On appeal, the plaintiff's sole contention is that the trial justice erred in dismissing, pursuant to Rule 50 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff's defamation claim on the basis of privilege.

This case came before this Court on December 13, 2006, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. Having considered the record, the briefs filed by the parties, and the oral arguments, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that this case should be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

Facts and Travel

On May 19, 2000, plaintiff was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, personal injury resulting. Subsequently, on March 7, 2001, plaintiff was detained by the North Kingstown police when he was alleged to be driving with a suspended license, and he was arrested for failing to appear for a payment-schedule hearing stemming from the May 19, 2000 incident. The police report relating to the events of March 7, 2001, which was prepared by the North Kingstown Police Department, stated that the payment-schedule hearing for which plaintiff had failed to appear related to a charge of "leaving the scene of an accident, death resulting." A subsequent page of that same police report described the underlying charge as: "Leaving scene accident injury/death." A "Supplement Narrative," which was also part of the police report, specified that the warrant for plaintiff's arrest for failure to appear related to a charge of "leaving the scene of an accident, death resulting."

Shortly thereafter, on March 15, 2001, The Standard Times published a news item indicating that plaintiff had been arrested on a warrant "for failing to appear for a payment schedule, stemming from a leaving the scene of an accident, death resulting charge."

On May 19, 2003, plaintiff filed suit against the State of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island State Police and John Does 1-10, and The Standard Times. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the State of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island State Police and John Does 1-10 on April 20, 2005, but the motion for summary judgment of The Standard Times was denied. The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint against The Standard Times containing two counts, one alleging defamation and one alleging the negligent infliction of emotional distress.

A jury trial commenced on February 8, 2006. On February 13, 2006, at the close of plaintiff's case, defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50; the trial justice granted the motion, and a judgment to that effect was entered. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal on February 28, 2006.¹

Standard of Review

When this Court reviews the entry of judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a)(1),² it applies the same standard as did the trial justice. Mills v. State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d 461, 472 (R.I. 2003); see also Tedesco v. Connors, 871 A.2d 920, 927 (R.I.2005). The trial justice, and consequently this Court, "considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, without weighing the evidence or evaluating the credibility of witnesses, and draws from the record all reasonable inferences that support the position of the nonmoving party." DeChristofaro v. Machala, 685 A.2d 258, 262 (R.I. 1996); see also Tedesco, 871 A.2d at 927; State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d at 472. The trial justice may grant a Rule 50(a)(1) motion if "a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue." Super. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1); see also Hanson v. Singsen, 898 A.2d 1244, 1248 (R.I.2006); State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d at 472. However, the trial justice must deny the motion if there are factual issues concerning which reasonable persons may draw different conclusions. Tedesco, 871 A.2d at 927; State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d at 472; Mellor v. O'Connor, 712 A.2d 375, 377 (R.I.1998).

Analysis

The plaintiff contends that the trial justice erred in dismissing, pursuant to Rule 50, plaintiff's defamation claim on the basis of privilege. We disagree with plaintiff's contention.

Under Rhode Island law, for a defamation plaintiff to prevail, he or she must prove the following elements: "(1) * * * a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party; (3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and (4) damages." Mills v. C.H.I.L.D., Inc., 837 A.2d 714, 720 (R.I.2003); see also Kevorkian v. Glass, 913 A.2d 1043, 1047 (R.I.2007); Alves v. Hometown Newspapers, Inc., 857 A.2d 743, 751 (R.I.2004); Healey v. New England Newspapers, Inc., 555 A.2d 321 324 (R.I.1989). Additionally, it is well settled that "one who republishes libelous or slanderous material is subject to liability just as if he had published it originally." Martin v. Wilson Publishing Co., 497 A.2d 322, 327 (R.I.1985); Metcalf v. Times Publishing Co., 20 R.I. 674, 678, 40 A. 864, 865 (1898).

However, even if a plaintiff is able to prove all four of the above-mentioned elements of the tort of defamation, the publisher (or republisher) of a false and defamatory statement may be immunized from liability if he or she was privileged to make the statement at issue. See C.H.I.L.D., Inc., 837 A.2d at 720; see also Kevorkian, 913 A.2d at 1048; Swanson v. Speidel Corp., 110 R.I. 335, 339-40, 293 A.2d 307, 310 (1972). Whether or not a particular allegedly defamatory statement falls within a recognized privilege is a question of law. E.g., C.H.I.L.D., Inc., 837 A.2d at 720 ("The determination of whether the privilege exists on the facts of a particular case is a question of law for the court to decide."); Swanson, 110 R.I. at 338-39, 293 A.2d at 309 ("[T]he determination of whether on the particular facts of a given case the privilege exists is exclusively legal and is for the court, and not for the jury."); Ponticelli v. Mine Safety Appliance Co., 104 R.I. 549, 555, 247 A.2d 303, 307 (1968).

One of the several privileges that may be invoked in the proper circumstances is the fair report privilege.³ Long recognized at common law, this privilege immunizes the publisher from liability for defamation if what is published is a "fair report" of (inter alia) an official action or proceeding. Restatement (Second) Torts § 611 at 297 (1977) ("The publication of defamatory matter concerning another in a report of an official action or proceeding or of a meeting open to the public that deals with a matter of public concern is privileged if the report is accurate and complete or a fair abridgement of the occurrence reported."); see also Kenney v. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co., 259 F.3d 922, 923-24 (8th Cir.2001); Martin, 497 A.2d at 328. The fair report privilege is often viewed as an exception to the common law republication rule. See, e.g., Medico v. Time, Inc., 643 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1981); Costello v. Ocean County Observer, 136 N.J. 594, 643 A.2d 1012, 1018 (1994) ("The fair-report privilege is an exception to the general rule that imposes liability for republication of a defamatory statement."); see also Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., 838 F.2d 1287, 1299 (D.C.Cir.1988) ("To ameliorate the chilling effect that the republication rule would have on the reporting of controversial matters of public interest, common law courts * * * recognize a privilege for fair and accurate accounts of governmental proceedings.").⁴

This Court has previously expressed the policy considerations behind the fair report privilege:

"The common-law privilege of fair report protects the publication of fair and accurate reports of public meetings and judicial proceedings, even when an individual is defamed during the proceeding or action. This privilege does not abrogate the policy of protecting one's reputation but rather subordinates this value to the countervailing public interest in the availability of information about official proceedings and public meetings." Martin, 497 A.2d at 328.

This Court further stated that:

"It is important to observe that the fair-report privilege accommodates the important societal interest in facilitating dissemination of information about judicial and governmental proceedings at which identified and identifiable persons may participate in resolving disputes and advancing the progress of government." Martin, 497 A.2d at 328-29.

With respect to the real-world application of the fair report privilege, a certain amount of "breathing space" is accorded to the publisher: the operative criterion is substantial accuracy, not perfect accuracy. See, e.g., Ricciardi v. Weber, 350 N.J.Super. 453, 795 A.2d 914, 924 (App. Div.2002) ("Although the account need not be exact in every immaterial detail, and although it is sufficient if it conveys to the listener or reader a substantially correct account, the report must nevertheless be fair."); Alpine Industries Computers, Inc. v. Cowles Publishing Co., 114 Wash.App. 371, 57 P.3d 1178, 1187 (2002) ("For a report to be a fair abridgment of an official proceeding, surgical precision is not required so long as the report is substantially accurate and fair."); see also Yohe v. Nugent, 321 F.3d 35, 44 (1st Cir.2003) ...